Talk:Southern State Parkway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Roads (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
U.S. Roads WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has a map. If the map has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
WikiProject Long Island (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Long Island on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Where's Robert Moses? Where's discussion of toll booths & removal. Why does it have so many curves? Are there plans to make it safer or straighter?--JimWae (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Weren't a lot of these topics removed because of an alleged inability to cite sources? ----DanTD (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see curves & safety are kinda buried in "Route description". The History section is not much history. No Moses, tho' --JimWae (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The curves are a contemporary issue, so maybe they should be left alone or mentioned again in the history section. I agree that the history section should be expanded though, including the role of Robert Moses in the construction of the parkway. ----DanTD (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Incorrect?[edit]

It seems this article and the Heckscher_State_Parkway article are incorrect. HSP starts at Timber Pt Rd where SSP ends. This is denotable by (a) Google Maps (which correctly labels them using the GOVERNMENT map data) and (b) signage (including sub-mile markers) along the parkway and finally (c) entrance signs to the highway itself at Montauk Hwy and Timber Pt.

I can walk down to the incorrect start/end designation of these parkways and provide picture references and such to prove this if wanted.

So... unless perhaps there is some state data that contradicts the TigerLine Data that the slew of mapping systems use, then perhaps we should fix this?

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the Google Image indicating such here:
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
All the signs east of Sagtikos State Parkway indicate otherwise. ----DanTD (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? It seems they are actually confusingly mixed. The entrance at Montauk Hwy is labeled for both (depending on direction), the ramp signs (lighthouse signs) show "SO" (north). Generally (as in the cause with SSP from RMC) it is labeled as "TO SO" instead of just the "SO" sign. And the TigerLine data seems to indicate such as well.
All of the original signage was contrary to these inconsistencies and indicated what Google and TigerLINE does. Why the inconsistent changes, I dont know. But then again, I'd believe the TigerLINE data over the sets of mixed up contrary signs they've put up in recent years (like the random Robert Moses PARKWAY signs they accidentally put up hundreds of miles from said parkway - and took years to replace with the Robert Moses Causeway signs that belonged there)

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 06:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... seems you may be right - or various other sites are. Did a lot of digging, and it's an interesting topic, with conflicting information on the sites that do go into detail. Seems the Hecksher Spur went from Montauk Hwy to the park, SSP was extended to it, the Spur was made parkway and renamed HSP, and the extension to SSP was including at some point in that naming. Weird. While a bunch of other sites still show the terminus of the SSP as 27A or Timber Point Rd, with the HSP beginning there, other sites such as saying otherwise (agreeing with the WP article) while the other sites that match the wikipedia article are merely copies of it or portions of it.
I'll doublecheck the TigerLINE data when I get the chance.
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 06:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Weird... other sites are claiming that east of the Sag, it is the "Southern State Parkway, Hecksher Spur" till it reaches the original location of the HSP. There used to be other parkways with such weird naming, or with duplicate naming (like The Belt (Shore) Parkway). Hmmmm... and maparchive directions showing "27A to Southern State Parkway Heckscher Spur, north and west along the Southern State Parkway Heckscher Spur to Carleton Ave., north along Carleton Ave." - that's also something I remember from a buncha old maps.
I guess in the efforts to shorten the names (for instance removing the "State" from virtually all of them), maybe they did another name change for public signage?

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 06:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The alleged former service area between Exits 17 & 18.[edit]

Somebody here posted the following line that has been called into question for a while;

Another service area was once located between exits 17 and 18.

I think I saw where this alleged service area may've been. In the eastbound lane just before the Parkway approaches Eagle Avenue & Hempstead Lake State Park, there's an indentation in the curb of the left-hand shoulder. Plus the median is wide enough there so that a small service area could've operated there by 1920's and 1930's standards. This may not be concrete evidence of a former service area, but it can create the perception that one could've been located there. Maybe somebody can investigate this, I don't know. ----DanTD (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE - I finally found it on Historic Aerials Online, but I still can't save the link from that particular image, because that piece of shit website doesn't let me do it. ----DanTD (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Southern Parkway[edit]

This article is incorrectly named. The name of the parkway is "Southern Parkway", just as the sign says. "Southern State Parkway" is a colloquialism, albeit a ubiquitous one, but should not be used in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatsouthbay (talkcontribs) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You sure about that? I know they've shortened signs and such for simplicity, but I didnt think they changed the name. (Kinda like how we can refer to our friend Jim as Jim, and write it that way too... but his real name is actually James). Anyway, would love to know if you can find a state doc showing it having been renamed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure when "Southern State Parkway" came into common usage. I believe it was originally a reference to the fact that Southern Parkway (like all parkways in New York) are state parkways - part of the New York State Parkway System. If you look at that page, you'll see that there are some parkways that use the word "state', like Taconic State Parkway. Parkway signs are sometimes shortened but never change the name. There would be no reason to shorten it anyway, as the Taconic State Parkway sign shows. Newsday used to have an incredible historical website that had lots of documents listing it as Southern Parkway. But all one really has to do is look at the sign. :) Greatsouthbay (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Page 60 of the 2009 NYSDOT Traffic Data Report disagrees with you. There is a parkway on Long Island whose official name is the Southern Parkway, but this isn't it. – TMF 02:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not mistaking it for the other Southern Parkway, in Uniondale, which is only a few blocks long. There's also a second Northern Parkway, which intersects with it. I know that some "official" websites, as well as maps, list it as Southern State Parkway, but there are also those that list it as Southern Parkway (, and others that list it both ways on the same page. This page lists "Southern Parkway" as being part of the Belt Parkway: Unfortunately, the Belt Parkway page on Wiki is incorrect, as it lists "Southern Parkway" as part of the Belt Parkway, but specifies that it's not the same as the "Southern State Parkway", when in fact, it is! The first few exits of Southern (state) Parkway is the easternmost part of the Belt Parkway. The earliest, official documents that I've seen list it as "Southern Parkway". Do you have an explanation for the sign? Anyway, I'm in no rush to change it. I was mainly throwing it out there for discussion. Thanks. Greatsouthbay (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Those two websites you list a self-published sources, and can't really be used as sources, but the report TMF linked above is an official source. When in doubt, you have to go with what the reliable sources tell you. Imzadi 1979  08:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
One is and one isn't. The second source is not only used in this article already, but many other articles on wiki. However, I haven't used either in the article. I used them to further the discussion on this page. The problem with "reliable sources", in this case, is that there are many, and they don't always agree. That's why I didn't change it. I understand how sticky an issue it is. Greatsouthbay (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
What official agency publishes ? What official agency publishes ? Just because other articles improperly are using a self-published source does not mean the site is allowable. We're talking about this article, not them. The fact that this article is using an improper source means that a conscientious editor can remove any material cited to that source at any time if he can't replace the source. Once again though, the official agency in charge of the roadway should know the correct name of the road, even if they create signs that differ from their documents. MDOT omits the "M" from the diamond marker on green guide signs, but that doesn't mean that the freeway 2 miles south of me is not still called M-6. The signs for New York State Route 22 do not contain the words "New York State Route" and only have a shield shape with a "22". Does that mean that road is only called 22? Imzadi 1979  18:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
What makes you think a website has to be published by an "official agency" in order to be used on Wiki? It's not a self-published source". However, here's an "official" source for you. It took me about three minutes to find this, and I can assure you that there are more: It's the Long Island division of the MTA. On this page they refer to Southern Parkway correctly, 3 times. They also refer to Northern Parkway correctly, which is often mistakenly called "Northern State Parkway", 8 times. As I've already said, I realize how ubiquitous a mistake it is, that it's even made it's way on to "official" websites, that I currently have no plans to change it and that I was interested in starting a discussion. I don't consider the website you refer to as "self-published" and don't think there's a valid reason to remove material that uses it as a source. You can edit it, but if another editor disagrees with you, you'll have to seek consensus for it. Greatsouthbay (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm pretty sure that both and are created by and for roadgeeks. There is no formal editorial oversight like there is with a newspaper or formal media source. There is no established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They are essentially considered no more reliable than a blog from WordPress or a book printed by a vanity publisher. That's why they're not supposed to be used as a source, unless the author is considered to be an expert in his field. The best sources for highway information are the state agencies involved or newspapers, which isn't to assume that the facts published in newspapers will always be true. (The media are usually fairly inconsistent in how they abbreviate or reference non-named highways.) Imzadi 1979  04:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm lost on this one. Are we all agreeing that the NYS official document above is a valid source, and thus that the proper, full name (even if only designated as such on some (but not all) of the signs) is Southern State Parkway? If not, I am truly lost. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 04:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What I've been saying is that there are a number of "official" sources that are in conflict. I didn't change it. I just raised the issue. Greatsouthbay (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's the thing though; Even when the webmasters of both sites refer to the road as "Southern Parkway," they know that it's officially named the "Southern State Parkway," and expect most of their users to know the same thing. For the record, there's also a segment of the Belt Parkway that was named "Southern Parkway," not to mention a local street in Plainview, New York named "Southern Parkway," which you can find at Exit 11 on the SOB Expressway. ----DanTD (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Attention rationale[edit]

Route description currently reads like something that belongs in a lead; it should be moved (back?) into the lead and replaced with a proper route description. – TMF 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The lede is both as an introduction to the article and a concise summary of its most important aspects. It should "define the topic without being overly specific" (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). The route description section is far too specific for the lead. It's also right at the top of the article. I see no reason to change it. Greatsouthbay (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you look at Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles and their leads and route descriptions. – TMF 05:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, there's no mention of the history in the lead. There's barely any summary of the RD in the lead. The infobox doesn't even summarize the junction list. (There's at least 3 state route junctions that could be added to the infobox.) This lead does not "define the topic without being overly specific". Imzadi 1979  05:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

On another point, restore the "The" at the start of the lead sentence. Capitol Loop, a Featured Article uses a "The" in its lead sentence. Trust me, pickier copy editors than you combed through that article. (Tony1 (talk · contribs) is a professional writer and copy editor for instance, and he helped tweak the lead of the article before it went to FAC.) Removing it just makes the sentence read wrong. Imzadi 1979  09:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a writer and editor and I disagree. There are many featured articles that are not only incorrect but poorly written, so I don't find your argument convincing. Greatsouthbay (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's also improper English (lack of "The"). Just as "The car", "The Washington Monument" and so on are proper English (there's a particular term that covers such usage, but it eludes me at the moment). "The" belongs there. :-) ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 09:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not only correct English but more concise. Greatsouthbay (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you have three people, and recent precedents running against you. Thank you for your opinion, but we would like our "The"s back now. Imzadi 1979  18:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to belabor the point. It's 8th grade English. I hope you'll now spend a comparable amount of time making significant contributions to Wikipedia. Greatsouthbay (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, many sites on proper English disagree with you. Here's [1] one such site. I can find probably a few hundred more sites and references on the matter if you would like. Also, you may wish to consider phrasing your talkpage messages a little differently as your previous message implies (even though I am sure it was not your intent) that neither Imzadi or I understand 8th grade (or higher) English, while also ending in a remark that belittles our efforts on this article. Again, I am sure that was not intended, thus the suggestion to be more careful with your wording. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted Greatsouthbay's removal of "The" against PER (change/redact: 04:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)) consensus and requested that they return to discuss it before going against consensus. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 04:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, if a source were found proving this line;

The land used had originally been a conduit path for water, owned by Brooklyn.

would that be enough to get the additional citiations tag removed from the history chapter? ----DanTD (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
No. The second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the section are all unreferenced. – TMF 21:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Southern Parkway" sign[edit]

Is anyone going to address the issue of the sign? The sign says "Southern Parkway", not "Southern State Parkway". Does anyone have a convincing argument for why that is? And it's not only the sign in the infobox, but many others related to the parkway, not only on Southern Parkway itself, but leading to it from other roads. Are all of the signs wrong? :) Greatsouthbay (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
See my comments above. Imzadi 1979  18:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The designation I have seen on state and federal documents (including the TigerLINE data) lists it as (the) "Southern State Parkway" - which doubtfully does not fit on the signs very well. It is probably the same reason why the "Southern State Parkway Hecksher Spur" is rarely called such (even here). ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
As a related note, there are still signs (in West Islip) that "designate" the Robert Moses State Causeway as "Robert Moses Parkway" - even though that particular parkway is actually on the far end of the state a few miles from Niagra falls. Signage does not necessarily denote accurate naming. As a matter of fact, until I requested a change on Google Maps, it too incorrectly called the entire length (or close to it) of the RMC "Robert Moses (State) Parkway" - I got that reviewed and fixed just this month (Sept 10th (ID: 321E-7EB4-9584-3D64)). ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It's funny, people miss the many documents that indicate what portion is SSP. The document (PDF) of the 2007 Traffic report lists SSP as ending at the toll booths. Page 258. (908M07021168 Toll booths end SSP).[2] The full name per law (ie: laws and such used for the purpose of funding) is "Southern State Parkway Heckscher Spur" from exit 41 to its terminus noted in my first sentence. That is its full and proper name. That is why the bordering road is named "Spur Drive" and not "Parkway Drive" or some other variant (which could refer to either parkway name).
The intersection is labeled "HSP" (as well as SSP on signage) for Sunrise Highway, but that is not the designation of the road itself. Here's another[3] legally binding document indicating such. And another which lists Sunrise Hwy Exit 46 (Southern State Parkway (Exit 46/SSP) ) as Southern State Parkway.[4]
The correct designations are SSP to 41, SSP Heckscher Spur to Rt 27 or the tolls, and HSP from there onwards. I can provide about a dozen state and court and federal documents that state such. And, generally, it is in the legal documents where the full name (ie: Southern State Parkway Heckscher Spur) is used (as that's a requirement, just like getting a person's name correct on such would be). Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Grand Central Parkway[edit]

I was advised to take GCP (from Brklyn) to the Northern State instead of taking Southern State - in order to avoid the many curves on SSP. However, GCP is also extremely curvy and also hilly. I have since been told it is not a very safe route in icy weather. The SSP article mentions safety, curves, & improvements for safety's sake. I do not see any comments on this in the GCP article. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of GCP is interested in doing so.--JimWae (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)